This just in from Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund. This bill, HR 2749, is surreal. It would give the FDA far-reaching power to shut down food facilities and imposes large fines (from $100,000 for small producers to $7.5 million for corporations) and jail time. It could also affect small farms, backyard gardeners selling produce, and artisanal producers at farmer's markets by regulating the way they produce or grow their items.
This is truly unbelievable. Please take the time to read the FAQs below and take the appropriate action.
Also, please forward this to as many people as you can.
ACTIONS TO TAKE
1. Call Your Representatives Personal contact is an effective way to change hearts and minds. To find your representatives, use the finder tool at www.Congress.org or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. When contacting your representatives, use examples from the FAQs to explain your opposition to HR 2749.
2. Sign the Petition HR 2749 has been moving quickly through Congress. If you have not already done so, please send a personal message to your legislators through the online petition "Oppose HR 2749" at www.farmtoconsumer.org/petitions_new.htm
3. Donate to the Fund Help the Fund continue its valuable service - helping small farmers and protecting your access to quality food. www.farmtoconsumer.org/donate
NOTE: Answers are based on the June 17 Waxmanversion that was accepted by voice vote of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Page references are noted per this version posted at
Q1: Does FDA have jurisdiction over INTRAstate commerce?
A1: As a federal agency, the FDA has jurisdiction over INTERstate commerce. For example, the prohibited acts regarding adulteration and misbranding in the current Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) all refer to INTERstate commerce. However, the existing law states that "in any action to enforce the requirements of [FFDCA] . . . the connection with INTERstate commerce required for jurisdiction in such action shall be presumed to exist." [1a] Combined with court decisions addressing the connection between INTRAstate and INTERstate commerce, it is unclear what kind of showing defendants would have to make to rebut the presumption and avoid federal regulation. The agency's regulatory power is limited to commerce, however, so non-commercial activities (such as growing your own vegetables for personal consumption) are not regulated.
Under current law, a business qualifying as a "food facility" must register with FDA, even if that business only engages in INTRAstate commerce. [1b] In addition, the agency can inspect the records of a business that engages solely in INTRAstate commerce if there is a "reasonable belief that an article of food is adulterated and presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals." [1c]
Q2: Would HR 2749 expand the FDA's regulation of INTRAstate commerce?
A2: Yes. Under HR 2749, FDA's regulatory control over INTRAstate commerce would grow considerably. The bill would allow for inspections of firms whose business is strictly within a State. [2a] It would impose, among other requirements, a mandate for all firms in the food business to comply with national performance standards for various foods set by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). [2b] It would also require most firms in the food business to establish a traceback system for their products, even if those products never cross State lines. [2c]
Q3: I have a garden and sell produce at a road-side stand on my property. Would HR 2749 apply to me?
A3: Yes, you would now have to follow federally-established standards for growing produce. [3a] Produce not grown as required by these standards would be considered as adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). [3b] Further, you would be required to make your business records available to FDA inspectors. [3c] The inspectors would have the power to show up unannounced without a warrant to search your records without any evidence whatsoever that you have committed a violation of the law. If you refuse to let the inspector see your records, you would be guilty of adulteration under FFDCA. [3d]
Q4: I sell produce from my garden at a local farmers market, under HR 2749 would I have to register as a "food facility" with FDA?
A4: Farms are exempt from the registration requirement under current law. [4a] HR 2749 would not eliminate this exemption. "Farm" is narrowly defined under current regulations [4b]; so, it is possible that many farms that have not registered in the past, could be required to do so if FDA has more resources at its disposal to enforce registration.
For example, a farm that sells vegetables straight from the garden (i.e., no processing) would not be a "food facility". If FDA strictly interprets the definition of "farm", a farm that sells canned vegetables at the market would be a "food facility" because canning is considered "processing" under the law. [4c] Under federal regulation, a farm that processes food would not be considered a "farm" for purposes of the registration requirement unless ALL of the processed food is consumed ON the farm. [4d]
Under HR 2749, those who sell vegetables from the garden at farmers markets would be required to follow federal standards for growing produce [4e]; and their business records would be subject to random warrantless searches by FDA inspectors even if the agency has no evidence of any violation of the law. [4f-see Q3/A3 above]
Q5: I own a bakery and sell my goods at a local farmers market, how would HR 2749 apply to me?
A5: HR 2749 would apply to you in the following ways: 1 - Your bakery would qualify as a "food facility" and you would need to register with FDA each year [5a] and pay an annual fee ($500 in 2010 [5b], and increasing in future years as indexed for inflation [5c]). 2 - You would have to register in electronic format. [5d] 3 - You would be required to have a unique facility identifier number. [5e] 4 - You would be required to conduct an analysis identifying potential hazards at your food facility; and you must implement controls to prevent those hazards from occurring as well as a plan for what to do in the event that any do occur. [5f] 5 - If your products cross state lines, you must develop a FOOD SAFETY PLAN. [5g-also see Q6/A6 below] 6 - You would also be required to establish and maintain a system for tracing the food you produce. It is uncertain at this point what this traceability system will require, but the requirements are likely to be extensive. [5h]
A6: Your FOOD SAFETY PLAN would have to include a hazard analysis that identifies potential hazards in your operation. The plan must also include descriptions of a variety of procedures you follow to prevent hazards from occurring and corrective actions to take if any does occur. In addition, you would need to describe your procedures for recordkeeping, conducting recalls, and traceback. Further, the plan must include how you ensure a "safe and secure food supply chain" for the items and ingredients you use as well as how you implement any science-based performance standards required by FDA. [6a]
[6a] Section 102, sec 418A(b)-pp. 29-30
Q7: I have read a summary of HR 2749 and am alarmed by the provision giving the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the power to quarantine any geographic area within the country. How broad is this power?
A7: Under HR 2749, the HHS Secretary would have the power to prohibit ALL MOVEMENT of ALL FOOD within a geographic area. No court order is needed to exercise this power. The Secretary only has to notify the appropriate official of the State(s) affected and issue a public announcement. [7a]
[7a] Section 133(b)-pp. 98-99
Q8: I am a raw milk consumer. Is it true that under HR 2749 would give FDA the power to institute a complete ban on the sale of raw milk?
A8: Yes, HR 2749 requires the HHS Secretary to issue "science-based performance standards . . . applicable to foods or food classes." The Secretary is to "identify the most significant foodborne contaminants and the most significant resulting hazards . . . and to minimize to an acceptable level, prevent or eliminate the occurrence of such hazards." [8a] FDA would have the power to make pasteurization of all raw milk a performance standard. Based on both its public statements and its record of taking enforcement actions against farmers, FDA is vehemently opposed to the consumption of raw milk and would like to ban its distribution.
Even if FDA does not issue a performance standard requiring pasteurization, the likelihood is that if HR 2749 passes into law, the agency will be increasing its enforcement actions against raw milk producers whose products cross state lines. FDA has indicated that raw milk is a priority item with the agency; with the passage of HR 2749, it would have much greater resources to go after raw milk than it did before. FDA could take enforcement action directly or through state agencies funded by FDA.
The way to stop this threat is to support HR 778, a bill that would, in effect, end the ban on raw milk for human consumption in interstate commerce. [8b] If you have not already done so, contact your Representative and Senators asking them to co-sponsor and/or vote for HR 778. You may send a message to them through the petition service by clicking on "Support HR 778 Now" at www.farmtoconsumer.org/petitions_new.htm
[8a] Section 103(b)-p. 37 [8b] 21 CFR 1240.61
Q9: I purchase products from an Amish producer who has said he would not register his facility because the electronic filing requirement violates his religious beliefs. What are the criminal and civil penalties he could be facing if he is charged with violating the law?
A9: Under HR 2749, failing to register a food facility would constitute "misbranding." [9a] If any of the "misbranded" products are introduced or "delivered for introduction into interstate commerce", the producer could be sentenced to up to ten years and be assessed criminal fines. [9b] Under HR 2749, anyone knowingly violating certain prohibitions contained in the FFDCA such as the prohibition against introducing adulterated or misbranded food in interstate commerce, could face these penalties.
In addition, the Amish producer could be facing substantial civil penalties. Under HR 2749, any individual who knowingly violates a provision of section 331 of FFDCA (prohibited acts) relating to food, can be fined up to $100,000; a corporation can be fined up to $7.5 million. [9c]
Q10: I'm a farmer who sells products direct to consumers. I want to protect the privacy of those who purchase from me and do not want to turn over to FDA any customer information I have in my records. What are the potential penalties if I refuse? A10: Under HR 2749, FDA would have access to all records relating to the food producer's distribution of products. Failing to provide records to FDA would constitute adulteration. [10a] The criminal penalty for refusing access to records would be up to ten years imprisonment. [10b] The civil fines could be up to $100,000 for an individual and $7.5 million for a corporation. [10c]
Anyone with additional questions is encouraged to contact the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund directly by calling 703-208-3276 or emailing info@farmtoconsumer.org
Science vs. Dogma By Monica @ 9:15 AM
You’ve heard me say I don’t have any firm beliefs about climate change, though I’ve blogged a tad on the issue from time to time when it relates to evolutionary biology.I’ve learned firsthand the dangers of trusting conventional wisdom on matters of much import.(I’m speaking chiefly of nutrition where the conventional wisdom is mostly wrong and a lack of objectivity among researchers seems to abound.)
While I’m a big fan of pasture-based animal agriculture and think it’s a win-win-win-win situation for human health, animal welfare, pollution (not CO2), and economic benefits to farmers (Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed!),I’m not naïve enough to think that these are the types of changes the USDA would attempt to make in order to stem “climate change”.This is wholly apart from the question of whether that change is occurring, what its causes are if that is the case, and whether the USDA’s attempts at central planning would actually work (and I suspect they would not).This is simply not going to happen in the current political climate in the US, when politically connected Monsanto al. preen about "sustainability", the farmers who grow Monsanto’s crops receive literally billions in corporate welfare yearly, and environmental do-gooders everywhere exalt the benefits of a plant-based diet to reduce environmental impact and feed more people.Monsanto also gloats over a 10% reduction of methane by using rBST (a product it has now sold to another company) in feedlot cows when a 50% reduction is reported using pasture and the milk from pastured cows is more nutritious.There’s sustainability and there’s sustainability*.
Interestingly, New Zealand has a huge animal products market for the size of its country, and has pasture-based animal husbandry with very low costs of production.Guess what else New Zealand did last year?They halted their new climate change program.Of course, that’s not a scientific point and doesn’t prove anything about climate change either way.However, it’s worth considering that New Zealand is a pretty “green” country.The fact that they can step back and re-assess the value of a cap and trade scheme is worth noticing.
The fact that New Zealand, and now Australia, are questioning the wisdom of cap and trade schemes, has not been lost on the climate change alarmists, whose message gets shriller and shriller by the day -- nay, the hour.Practically 50% or more of the articles coming in through my Scientific American feed are about climate change.Some of the titles are truly absurd.
Then there’s this post from realclimate.org popped up in my Google Reader yesterday.It’s basically an attempt to dismiss an EPA document that raises the idea that the EPA’s position on climate science might be wrong.Click on over and check it out.(You might want to have a paper bag handy, though.It’s that nauseating.)So I got curious and clicked on Alan Carlin’s EPA document, which is linked in the realclimate.org post, to see whether Gavin Schmidt’s (of realclimate.org fame) allegations were true.
Besides the fact that I think Carlin makes some good points (I only skimmed this), the review of Carlin’s document at realclimate.org is very lacking in substance. Gavin Schmidt minimizes the impact that bloggers can have (one wonders if this also includes him?) and attempts to detract from the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him when they are not climate scientists.He also under-reports the amount of peer-reviewed research Carlin cites.While peer review does not necessarily mean anything important scientifically, Carlin cites at least 30 peer-reviewed papers, a heft minority of them published in Science.
Did Schmidt think no one would click the link to Carlin's document and read?
But here’s the main problem with Schmidt’s line of argumentation (besides the fact that it’s rude and condescending, which is an immediate turn-off).Generally, he mentions someone’s lack of climate science credentials as often as he possibly can.Interestingly, Gavin Schmidt leaves out the point that although Carlin is an economist, he is an environmental economist and has a degree in physics.Claiming that someone is unqualified to comment on climate science because he is a physicist is a bit like saying that someone is unqualified to comment on nutrition because he’s a biochemist.It’s ridiculous.
I don’t like the tactics of the APGW community.Argument from authority and ad hominem argumentation are simply not arguments. I’ve seen such comments all too many times in the field of nutrition.The comments line to this post is a good example.
If a person can’t debate a matter by referring to the facts of reality, cannot admit errors, and/or must instead defensively sling insults to persuade others, then I can come to no other conclusion than that person is intellectually dishonest.(Or they could just be ignorant – but this doesn’t apply when the person has staked their entire career on a particular stance.)
These people in Congress are not benevolent. They live for a momentary gain, and do not consider the future of tax slavery and misery to which they condemn their own posterity. They are like lemmings running blindly over a cliff.
And it will not matter one iota in the vast reaches of planetary time. The climate cycles of the planet will continue to wax and wane in great temporal cycles. Species will come, and species will go. Earth abides.
Farm Policy Article in The Objective Standard By Monica @ 1:39 PM
What's at the root of tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare yearly, the unhealthy diet of many Americans, the demise of the family farm, and taxpayer-subsidized confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) waste? The USDA.
Gostin: Why is it so terrible that cows eat corn? Pollan: Because it makes them sick when they eat it in large quantities. A little corn is not going to kill them, but when it's 80 to 90 percent of their diet, it deranges their metabolism. They are evolved to eat grass, that's what they're good at; when you put corn into that amazing organ called the rumen, it acidifies it and creates an environment where acid-loving bacteria such as E. coli 015787 are able to evolve. What's beautiful is a rumen has a very different ph than a human stomach; whatever bacteria live in the rumen would normally get killed by our stomach acids, but if you make the cow's digestive system more like ours, any bugs that evolve there will survive their transit to our stomach and go on to possibly make us sick. That's really the E. coli story, but there are other problems, too: To keep the animals healthy on that corn diet, you have to give them lots of antibiotics, they just wouldn't survive otherwise.
He even correctly identifies government intervention as the source of the problems:
It's not an accident that fast food is so cheap. This is what the government underwrites. Factory farming does not exist without subsidized corn, it doesn't exist without it being legal to give important human antibiotics to cattle, it doesn't exist without basically regulatory indulgence.
Unfortunately, his solution is shifting the regulation, not removing it.
If the government would put those kinds of resources into underwriting healthy and real food, whether that's grass-fed beef or organic produce, then the healthy calories could compete more effectively with the unhealthy calories.
The solution is a truly free market in agriculture so individual consumers can choose which foods they want and have the choice to eat healthy or not.
The USDA has added NAIS listening sessions country-wide past the June 1 session in Loveland, CO. Opposition to NAIS at the original sessions was very strong. I presume they will be at the additional sessions as well (unless USDA has organized NAIS cronies to attend). You can leave your comments on NAIS on the USDA page if you wish.
The "consensus" on NAIS is rather clear. Independent farmers and ranchers do not support this program. It will literally destroy any semblance of a free market in farming that remains in this country. If the big producers with a large meat export interest want a traceability system for foreign standards, let them fund it privately and voluntarily, not place disproportionate costs on independent farmers through their thug-buddies, the USDA. Let them compete. That's called laissez-faire capitalism.
Farmers, Ranchers and Consumers will hold a protest of the NAIS – National Animal ID System on Tuesday June 9 from 8 am to 12 noon. The protest will run concurrently with the USDA NAIS listening session at Truman Hotel & Conference Center in Jefferson City, Missouri. More than a dozen organizations have signed on in support of the peaceful protest and will have members attending to speak out against NAIS. The USDA has been pushing for mandatory NAIS, originally calling for mandatory in January of 2008 and with enforcements in January of 2009, but has delayed implementation due to huge public outcry against the program. USDA is now asking for public input on how to overcome objections to the program. Bob Parker, a southern Missouri farmer, has toured the state speaking out against NAIS, “The USDA does not want to accept that the people are against this program. They are asking how to make it more palatable. Our message to USDA is to end NAIS now.”
NAIS is a three phase program designed by the USDA and the Nat’l Institute for Animal Agriculture to advance guidelines for international trade through an agency of the World Trade Organization called the OIE. NAIS will tag and track movements of 33 species of animals worldwide. Phase 1 requires livestock owners to obtain a GPS linked Premise ID number for their property. Phase 2 requires all animals be identified with an international ID device. Phase 3 requires electronic reporting of movements on or off a premises to effectuate 48 hour trace-back to the premises of origin of any and every animal. Each phase is predicated upon the preceding phase. There can be no NAIS animal ID without a NAIS premises ID.
Opposition to NAIS is strongest from independent cattlemen, small farmers and hobbyists.
Doreen Hannes is a researcher, author and public speaker whose family has a small farm and raises much of their own food. She states, “The design of NAIS is effectively a license to farm. This program would cost us at least $4,000 the first year. There is no method for growers to recoup the cost of the program, and the implementation of NAIS will be the destruction of the family farm and rural America. The cost to freedom is simply immeasurable.”
“The Missouri Libertarian Party has worked with farmers and ranchers in Missouri for years to prevent implementation of the burdensome regulations of the National Animal Identification System being forced on them by the USDA”, Glenn Nielsen, Missouri Libertarian Party Chair.
Paul Hamby, NW Missouri coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, states “NAIS will put an undue burden on non-electric Amish farmers, small hobby farmers, 4-H and FFA members while providing no benefit to them. NAIS will not make our food supply safer. I am against this international livestock ID program run by the same federal government who just bought General Motors. “
The following organizations are sending members to Jefferson City to speak against NAIS on June 9. R-CALF USA, Missouri Campaign for Liberty, Arkansas Animal Producers Association, International Dairy Goat Registry, Missouri Independent Consumers and Farmers Organization, Illinois Independent Consumers and Farmers Organization, Ozarks Property Rights Congress, Missouri First, Inc., Liberty Restoration Project, Legislators Against Real ID, Missouri Libertarian Party, Missouri Constitution Party, Missouri Rural Crises Center, Citizens for Private Property, Douglas County Citizens for Liberty.
Feedlot Cattle Fattened on Gummy Bears By Monica @ 8:37 AM
Sometimes fact truly is stranger than fiction. I'd heard this rumor before but had no documentation to back it up. But according to Associate Professor and Extension Nutritionist, Department of Dairy Science at University of Wisconsin, it's true. Feedlot milk cows may actually be fed up to 7 pounds of candy per day.
Unbelievable. No wonder they have such a short lifespan.
Forbidden Fruits By Monica @ 10:10 PM
Did you know that the federal government applies fines to farmers that shift from growing commodity crops like soy, cotton, wheat, rice, and corn? Yes, you read right. Farmers across most of the United States literally can't decide what to plant on their own land without the threat of federal fines. Not only will the farmer forego subsidies for failing to plant a "commodity crop" on acreage that has traditionally been used for that purpose, he'll be fined hundreds of dollars per acre for growing fruits or vegetablesinstead. Read all about the forbidden fruits (and vegetables).
If that isn't outrageous enough, consider that our tax dollars are already subsidizing (and thus, cheapening) foods made of cornmeal, high fructose corn syrup, and vegetable oils like corn, soy, and cottonseed -- all with serious, known adverse health effects like non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, Type II diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Let me make it plainer. Your tax dollars have been cheapening items like Doritos, Pepsi, Twinkies, Crisco, and Wonderbread for almost 100 years now. Meanwhile, the federal government obstructs your access to cheap, local, fresh vegetables in summertime.
This is appalling. If I was prone to conspiratorial thinking, and if I didn't know better than to believe that conspiracies don't last 100 years, I'd be tempted to say that the USDA's true mission is to put the American populace underground in a big hurry.
Approximately 100 people attended the Pennsylvania meeting. At this first meeting, USDA spent significant time "selling" the program in the morning, and strictly limited people's opportunity to speak. Of the 36 people who did speak, 27 spoke strongly against NAIS, 5 were somewhat indecisive, and only 4 spoke in favor of the program.
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund provided the following report from a farmer who attended: "The people who spoke in favor of NAIS were mostly from organizations like the Farm Bureau which has consistently supported NAIS. ... In my session the participants continued to speak out against the implementation of NAIS in any form, even as the facilitator kept trying to elicit comments about how the program could be improved."
Between 50 and 75 people attended the Washington state listening session, and the speakers were again overwhelmingly opposed to NAIS. "Only three spoke in favor of the program, a dairyman, a rep for an ear tag manufacturer, and the Washington State veterinarian, and even he sounded lukewarm towards the NAIS," reported Kathy and Bert Smith, FARFA and Liberty Ark members.
On the breakouts: "The general consensus was that even a voluntary NAIS is unacceptable. USDA officials were unwilling to answer any questions. Whenever a question was posed, the facilitator replied that they were just there to listen and gather input, not to answer questions. The facilitator kept reminding participants that the USDA was seeking solutions to make the NAIS workable. This group was hard pressed to come up with solutions. The general consensus was an overwhelming majority against NAIS and to do away with it completely. Most were not even willing to compromise with a voluntary program."
Approximately 150 people attended, including many FARFA members and people representing the Texas Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association, Liberty Ark, R-CALF, Livestock Marketing Association, and the Libertarian Party. There were small farmers, auction barn owners, horse owners, consumers, old ranchers, just-beginning farmers all speaking passionately against NAIS. Many of the speakers have been posted on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/user/somervellcountysalon
USDA attempted to start the day with a video of Vilsack, but had technical problems getting the recording to play! After that ironic beginning, 56 people spoke against any NAIS or advocated for a voluntary, market-driven program only. Only eight people spoke in favor of NAIS, almost entirely from the Texas Dairymen Association and Pork Producers. The afternoon sessions were also strongly anti-NAIS, with one session culminating in a blunt discussion of "how do we stop NAIS?" It was not a question on USDA's list, but it was definitely the one that most of the people there cared about!
FARFA Chapter leaders and Liberty Ark coordinators Susie Stretton, Rhonda Selser, and Margaret Stretton drove more than 450 miles from Louisiana to speak against NAIS at the Birmingham, Alabama meeting. They were joined by individuals not only from livestock organizations, but also from religious and property rights groups. Out of the crowd, 33 people asked to speak and 30 of them spoke against NAIS.
At the breakout sessions, all of the rooms were overwhelmingly anti-NAIS, just like the morning sessions. In one session, a woman claiming to represent the Tribes spoke at length about her qualifications and the cost-benefit analysis, only to be countered by the practical comments of the farmers in the room, who carried the NAIS documents and documented information with them. After participants spoke strongly against NAIS based on the cost, the lack of animal health benefits, and religious objections, the USDA facilitator stated that everyone was of "diverse opinions" and a consensus was impossible. A local farmer with the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund corrected him, pointing out that all but 2 people in the room were against NAIS. There was consensus at this meeting, although not the consensus that USDA was hoping for!
In Kentucky, about 150 people attended the session. Thirty-seven people spoke, with more than 90% speaking against a mandatory NAIS. Those who spoke against it were mostly individuals, speaking for themselves. Pro-NAIS speakers all represented organizations or their employers.
Wendell Berry gave a rousing speech declaring that this was the first meeting he'd been at with USDA, after decades of activism, where USDA brought armed police to protect itself. Ralph Packard, a natural livestock farmer, agreed with Wendell Berry, that the government will need its guns if they make the program mandatory and require people to register their farms and animals. Speakers came from Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio.
Break-out groups started early, but no consensus was possible. Some USDA personnel continued to insist that NAIS is voluntary, ignoring the coercion that USDA has funded, and state mandatory programs, also funded by USDA. One USDA staffer painstakingly stated that there are many tagging options and that microchips aren't required "at this time." When confronted that his comment meant this could change, he would not respond. It was obvious that pro-NAIS personnel were uncomfortable, but also did not come prepared to make concessions.
More promising were the connections made among anti-NAIS activists. The Community Farm Alliance held a press conference at noon. Adam Barr, Ralph Packard, Weldell Berry, and Karin Bergener spoke about why NAIS will wipe out small, independent farmers and the meetings still failed to truly provide farmers a forum because of the late notices, and timing during busy season.
Feel free to share this information with as many people as possible. When you sign in at the meeting, you receive a ticket with a number - if the number is called, you get to speak, so there's no screening process (as far as I could tell). One of the more interesting observations, which I didn't mention in the post, is that uniformed [not sure if they were armed] security people were present in each of the listening session rooms.
I'm releasing the information about this session in order to encourage people to attend. It's quite clear from this session that there is no support for NAIS among the independent farming communities, yet USDA is trying to ram it through and create a perception of consensus where there is none. The fact that they think security guards are needed at public hearings says something, I think.
Some people have privately raised the possibility of lobbying for an exception to NAIS for small farmers. I believe this misses the entire point. The whole point of making NAIS mandatory is to make the program financially viable for meat exporters by putting disproportionate cost onto independent farmers. If Big Ag wants this program (and they do) let them sign up for it voluntarily and pay for it themselves. NAIS must be opposed on a matter of principle. The program is blatantly unconstitutional and violates about five constitutional amendments. Period. Think hard and ask yourself -- do you wish to compromise with people who have no respect for your constitutional rights?
If you would like to learn more about NAIS, please seetheselinks.
What you are about to read is enormously depressing -- a stark picture of how unaccountable our government has become. Our officials appear to need a constant reminder that they are supposed to work for us -- not the other way around. I will be offering my own reminder on June 1 in Loveland, CO -- either orally (if I'm allowed) or as a written statement.
Without further ado, here are the reader's comments:
I attended the NAIS "listening session" in Harrisburg, PA on May 14th. While I don't have an exact count, I know that attendees traveled from all over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, and New York state to be there. Many of the public comments were made on behalf of larger groups who were not able to attend. As was pointed out, the USDA had chosen to hold a minimum number of meetings AND they were being held during the farmers' busiest time. There were few consumer or "general public" spokepeople- it seems that the general public is [not surprisingly] largely unaware of the issue.
If I had to choose one statement that sums up the public comments it would be "What part of "NO!" don't you understand?" Chosen by lottery, about 25 people presented oral comments; I believe that 4 were supportive of NAIS. In both the morning session and the afternoon breakouts, the supporters of NAIS were either (a) representatives of large meat associations with a large export interest [who urged for implementation ASAP]; (b) Dept. of Agriculture employees [in my world, this would be called a major conflict of interest]; or (c) people who are affiliated with Penn State programs that are associated with the PA and US Depts. of Ag.
Key points that came out during the morning session:
USDA Panel Presentation [the order below is random and is not meant to imply prioritization]
-Meat exporters have suffered losses because of disease scares and are pushing for compliance with global standards in order to receive "premium" recognition and improve perceptions abroad about US meat.
-The current program has had [depending upon whose statistics you believe] anywhere from 10% [independent farm group's assessment based upon evaluation of the way the USDA conducted their study] to 30% [USDA statistics] voluntary participation.
-The current program is not economically viable without "full" participation.
-Government-owned herds would not be required to participate in the program.
-Nobody could provide details about how this NAIS program would be implemented, funded, enforced, or what penalties would be levied in case of non-compliance. They were unable to answer questions about cost with respect to tags, electronic and other equipment, fees, permits, etc.
-The panel side-stepped questions about constitutional authority for implementing such a program.
-At the start of the question session, the panelists stated they would refuse to answer questions about or speculate about the future of the program; they would only respond to questions about their presentations.
Public [taken from my notes with minimal editing, sorry]
-There was little interest in arriving at a "consensus"- the majority is vehemently opposed to participation in a mandatory NAIS program.
-If the large exporters need to have such a program, let them participate and fund it; don't force everyone into the program.
-The USDA and PDA have created a "disease problem" that does not exist, especially at the independent farm level. [Nobody from USDA the could provide examples of recent problems.]
-The raw milk fiasco is regarded by the public as an example of what's in store for them with NAIS.
-Current surveillance problems are working just fine and there is no need to add another bureaucratic entity to the mix.
-The USDA can't assure they have the ability to handle the huge amounts of data the program would generate, nor could they assure that electronic records would remain private [a private company would be handling part of the data management].
-What companies are supplying the technology and what are their relationships with the proponents of the program? [Not answered]
-The implicit (and sometimes explicit) tone was that a line had been drawn; people will not comply and are willing to engage in civil disobedience rather than be forced to participate.
I could go on, but I think those are the key points and the transcripts are supposed to be available at the NAIS website within the month.
My own commentary: As someone who runs focus groups and provides strategic recommendations with respect to programs that "tell a story" I could identify many of the same processes and tactics in play here.
-The USDA materials refer to "stakeholders'...a term that was refuted by many attendees.
-The agenda for the breakout session assumed that NAIS was a done deal and described the objectives of the session as being a way to "solicit ideas about how USDA can bring non-participants into the program."
-During the breakout sessions, USDA employees and supporters tried to get an "on-the-record" vote that at least "we can agree that there is a need for animal identification.." They were called on this tactic and the transcript should reflect the comments that people were not willing to have their opinions be manipulated to show support for the program. No "vote" was taken.
-Once again, the main issues raised by the independent farmers included: the USDA [and the US government in general] is overstepping its constitutional authority; the program should be scrapped; the idea of reaching a consensus was not valid as the majority of participants will not comply with mandatory NAIS program.
I spoke with a woman who, as a representative of a national organization, had attended a higher-level meeting in Washington last week. Her comments were:
-Congress didn't have a clue, and couldn't wrap their minds around, the real issues.
-Homeland Security was present at the meeting; congressional supporters of the Homeland Security aspects of the program wanted to know why "everybody hadn't been brought on board yet."
-The NAIS program is buried in several House and Senate bills.-The secretary would not meet with representatives of independent farm and animal organizations.
I did talk with a genetleman in PA who is working with his representatives in Lebanon County - he's interested in developing a network of people/groups who do not support a mandatory NAIS program with the goal of raising congressional and public awareness of the issues and the extent of disagreement with a mandatory program.
We went in with the Fragosso’s and each bought a whole grassfed lamb. I think we ended up with about 60lbs of meat and the price was about $3/lb. Damn cheap when you consider the quality of the food and the fact we are supporting local, sustainable food production. We are looking at doing a GF cow at some point but will need a larger freezer than what our refrigerator has. If you look around you can usually find a GF meat supplier nearby.
This is strikingly cheap. I've never seen leg of lamb cheaper than $5 in any grocery store. Rack of lamb in the grocery store is obviously considerably more expensive.
In the fall we'll be getting pastured pork from the farm where we get our amazing milk, Ebert Family Farm. This pork is $1.25 per pound with an added cost of $250 to butcher a hog. (See where a good portion of the cost comes in?) They usually finish the hogs at 250 lbs. which means the total cost per pound for the pork is around $2.25 per pound. I've never had pork that tastes quite as good, and when you consider the quality, that's damn cheap. Must be all the skim milk the pigs are getting. The hogs are also not confined in a building and thus, have more vitamin D in their flesh.
Who said local pastured animals aren't competitive in price? All the consumer needs is a freezer. All the farmer needs is access to a local, USDA-approved slaughterhouse that butchers the type of animal in question, which is a mandatory requirement. This last one often proves to be the real problem. Read to find out more about how this inflates the price of your food and decreases your access to quality and choice in the supermarket.
For more information on where to find meat from animals raised the old-fashioned way, on pasture, visit Eat Wild and/or your local Weston A Price chapter pages.
NAIS Hearings Around the Country -- Take Part! By Monica @ 9:57 AM
The USDA is hosting NAIS listening sessions in seven states. These public meetings will run from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. local time, with registration one hour prior to each meeting. The meetings will be held:
* May 14 in Harrisburg, Pa.; * May 18 in Pasco, Wash.; * May 20 in Austin, Texas; * May 21 in Birmingham, Ala.; * May 22 in Louisville, Ky.; * May 27 in Storrs, Conn., and * June 1 in Greeley, Colo.
Additional information on the meetings can be found here.
I encourage you to take part in these meetings. Usually, you can present an oral statement no longer than three minutes long. I will be presenting a statement in Greeley, CO on June 1.
Last week, Secretary Vilsack held a round table in DC, inviting 29 organizations to present their views on the NAIS. More than a third of the organizations at the meeting opposed a mandatory program, showing a growing trend among a wide range of organizations to question NAIS. But some of those who claim to support a "voluntary" program agree with the use of coercive tactics, which we have already seen happen under the current so-called voluntary program. And multiple Big AG organizations, who have a lot of influence with USDA and Congress, still openly support a mandatory NAIS. So we have a tough fight in front of us.
About a month ago, an outbreak of campylobacter may have been linked to a raw dairy in Colorado. I say "may have been" as non-raw milk drinkers also succumbed to the illness, and only about 6% of the shareholders originally reported illness. I believe the investigation is still ongoing and the dairy is still shut down. You can find the specifics on David Gumpert's blog, The Complete Patient, here and here. The comments lines of these threads are informative.
It's no surprise that the vast majority Freeman's shareholders are standing with him, and to the health department's surprise, most people just want their milk supply to start flowing again. This speaks to the fact that the majority of raw milk consumers understand the potential risks, yet see the benefits as outweighing those risks. It also highlights the importance of having a good independent association of raw milk consumers and producers, such as RMAC, committed to producing safe milk. When one buys food from a local farmer, a personal connection is usually forged. This creates the ultimate incentive to produce safe food: the farmer's reputation. The power of market forces is really more than enough to ensure safe food from local farms.
I do not wish to diminish the gravity of some serious food-borne illness cases that may have been tied to raw milk in recent years. However, one must keep perspective. There may be as many as 3 million raw milk drinkers in the United States. Some people are extremely susceptible to food-borne illness. I've never experienced a case of food poisoning in my entire life. I know several other people who have experience several cases each of food poisoning just this year. So, there is individual variation in immune response. Not everyone exposed to a pathogen will become ill.
Second is that the raw milk program under Guidestone Farms has been operating safely in Colorado for 30 years. There are now around 30 independent raw milk dairies in Colorado that have been operating for several years. Despite this incident, the record is still quite good.
Third, it's important to remember that even in a free market, accidents and mistakes will still happen, especially with newer operations. That doesn't mean we need government regulators to come in and "solve" the problem.
Interstate raw milk shipments
In other raw milk news, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy in California recently made a pitch to a government-industry juggernaut, the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments, to lift a ban on interstate raw milk shipments. (Ron Paul is also a sponsor of a bill that would legalize interstate raw milk shipment.) The proposal was unanimously vetoed. Here are statements from two milk industry representatives:
Robert Byrne of the National Milk Producers Association, said “the federal ban (on raw milk shipments) should be extended to include an intrastate ban.” In other words, a national ban on raw milk.
Jim Howie of something called the Southern Marketing Agency, a consortium of Southeastern milk processors, scoffed at McAfee’s claims about the economic advantages of raw milk. “This should not be a marketing issue...I market organic milk. Organic milk is not raw, and raw is not organic. Yes, there is a black market for raw milk. I cringe when I see it. Use the laws they have to close that black market...If someone gets sick (from raw milk), the newspaper article will not say raw milk, it will say milk...will hurt dairy farmers around the country. This proposal would be a step backwards.”
Of course, what the industry reps fail to note (although they know it full well) is that increased availability of raw milk would make them less relevant and their market share would decrease. And of course the milk industry is adamantly opposed to anyone in the milk industry -- raw milk producer or not -- besting what amounts to a government-run cartel. If you wonder why I call NMPA a government-industry juggernaut, you should read this article and see how these government-run milk cooperatives attack any milk producer that attempts to defy federal milk marketing orders. Federal milk marketing orders result in production quotas and price fixing in order to "support" milk producers. In other words, it protects them from competition and raises prices above what they would be in a free market. Agricultural marketing orders date back to the FDR era. This is another minor reason I buy raw milk. I would not buy raw milk if it was an inferior product. However, it is a superior product in my opinion. And if I can help it, I won't willingly give money to a bunch of thugs who think they have the right to keep a 75 year old government-supported cartel in business.
An interesting conversation with the biggest milk regulator of all
Finally, Gumpert reports that he was finally able to meet John Sheehan in person at this meeting after doing lots of investigation, without much fruit, to try to figure out more about Sheehan's professional background. John Sheehan is the FDA's head of milk safety who has repeatedly stated that drinking raw milk is like playing Russian roulette. According to David, here is the conversation with Sheehan after snapping a couple of photos of him at the NMPA meeting:
“Hi, I'm David Gumpert.”
“Yes, I know who you are.”
“I wonder if we could chat for just a few moments.”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Because I don't want to.”
Well, you have to give the guy credit for being honest... He just doesn't want to be f****ing bothered. If a guy doesn’t want to talk to you, not much you can do, even if you do help pay his salary.
Obviously, it's high time our government officials were reminded that they are supposed to work for us -- not the other way around.
A closing note
I highly recommend David's blog, The Complete Patient. He covers raw milk regulatory issues quite well. One finds strong support for individual rights in his writing and in many of the blog comments. Although there is often disagreement on the concrete specifics of raw milk benefits and safety in the comments, most of the commenters are quite intelligent. While the exchange can get heated, the tone is usually remarkably civil for such a controversial issue as raw milk.
Swine Flu Likely Started on CAFOs By Monica @ 8:23 PM
Well, it appears that my prediction/assertion that thousands of people could die from swine flu isn't coming true. I guess this time around, swine flu is turning out to be rather like SARS: big on scare, small on delivery. Not that I'm complaining!
The story that it spread from the hog CAFO near La Gloria, Mexico (that raises 1 million hogs yearly) might have something to it, however. The virus hasn't been found on the hog CAFO yet... according to authorities. However, that doesn't surprise me. This flu is a recombination of four viruses. I doubt the actual virus now circulating would ever be found in the pigs at La Gloria. What I think is more likely is that a virus from the pigs infected a human who was experiencing another viral infection at the same time, and a recombination event then took place, with that new virulent flu strain infecting and killing people. After all, the conditions the townspeople say they had been experiencing for weeks before the outbreak are quite disgusting, to say the least. 60% of townspeople reported respiratory distress and the whole town had been complaining of strong odors and flies. The town of La Gloria is eight miles downwind of this CAFO. That gives you an idea how big and filthy these operations are. If you have ever driven through the midwest and smell something utterly vile that you can't see, you know what it probably is. ACAFO.
Richard Nikoley has a good piece on how these flus quickly evolve toward lower virulence under lower host crowding conditions.
While I'm not a huge fan of the Centers for Disease Control (nor Scientific American for that matter), this article indicates that H1N1 got its start on hog CAFOs in the 1990s... in the United States.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will soon launch experiments designed to combine the H5N1 virus and human flu viruses and then see how the resulting hybrids affect animals. The goal is to assess the chances that such a "reassortant" virus will emerge and how dangerous it might be.
Swine Flu By Monica @ 6:55 PM
I don't know if you've noticed, but there's been surprisingly little detail on this swine flu. Additionally, local reports are indicating that the death toll from this flu is higher than most media sources are reporting.
We are now learning that this "swine" flu virus is a mixture of four viruses: 1 human, avian, and 2 swine influenza viruses. This amount of recombination has been historically unusual. Scientists claim they have no idea how this happened, yet the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm and Animal Production has already warned of emerging forms of avian-swine-human influenza viruses here in the U.S. due to the way we keep animals. Duh! This outbreak could almost as easily have happened in the United States.
What has not been reported in the mainstream media until now, but which has been known in Mexico for weeks, is that it is believed that this flu is linked to a US-owned Smithfields CAFO pork operation in Mexico. The original reporting on this, from what I can see, was in Grist who picked up on a disease tracking blog called Biosurveillance. The only report I have seen in the mainstream media is, as of the time of this writing, from the Times. I include a large section here because I think it is important. (my emphasis in italics added)
The first known case of swine flu emerged a fortnight earlier than previously thought in a village where residents have long complained about the smell and flies from a nearby pig farm, it emerged last night.
...
The boy’s hometown, La Gloria, is also close to a pig farm that raises almost 1 million animals a year. The facility, Granjas Carroll de Mexico, is partly owned by Smithfield Foods, a Virginia-based US company and the world’s largest producer and processor of pork products. Residents of La Gloria have long complained about the clouds of flies that are drawn the so-called “manure lagoons” created by such mega-farms, known in the agriculture business as Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
It is now known that there was a widespread outbreak of a powerful respiratory disease in the La Gloria area earlier this month, with some of the town’s residents falling ill in February. Health workers soon intervened, sealing off the town and spraying chemicals to kill the flies that were reportedly swarming through people’s homes.
A spokeswoman for Smithfield, Keira Ullrich, said that the company had found no clinical signs or symptoms of the presence of swine influenza in its swine herd or its employees working at its joint ventures anywhere in Mexico. Meanwhile, Mexico’s National Organisation of Pig Production and Producers released its own statement, saying: “We deny completely that the influenza virus affecting Mexico originated in pigs because it has been scientifically demonstrated that this is not possible.”
According reports gathered on the website of James Wilson, a founding member of the Biosurveillance Indication and Warning Analysis Community (BIWAC), about 60 per cent of La Gloria’s 3,000-strong population have sought medical assistance since February.
“Residents claimed that three pediatric cases, all under two years of age, died from the outbreak,” wrote Mr Wilson. “However, officials stated that there was no direct link between the pediatric deaths and the outbreak; they said the three fatal cases were isolated and not related to each other.”
The case of the four-year-old boy was announced yesterday by Mexico’s Health Minister, Jose Angel Cordova, at a press conference that was briefly interrupted by an earthquake. “We are at the most critical moment of the epidemic. The number of cases will keep rising so we have to reinforce preventive measures,” he said, adding that in addition to the 149 deaths another 2,000 had been hospitalised with “grave pneumonia”, although at least half of that number had since made a full recovery.
Mr Cordova went on to say that there have been no new cases detected in La Gloria but epidemiologists want to take a closer look at pigs in Mexico as a potential source of the outbreak.
Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) for pigs are about as grotesque as they can come. Pigs are crammed into giant buildings, kept in stalls so small they can’t even turn around. The pollution from their waste is so noxious that you must wear a gas mask to enter the building. And, of course, the pig’s immune systems are so weakened that you must don a “clean suit” just to walk within 100 feet of them.
Lest you think that's an exaggeration, I recommend this article if you are currently ignorant about what it takes to produce cheap food, particularly pork. It's a highly recommended read about the history of CAFO pork operations, particularly the company in question, Smithfields. I will warn you, it is not for the faint-hearted. Just ignore the free market hullabaloo. These operations are not the product of a free market. Anything but. They are the product of socialism. They started growing in the 1960s when the USDA subsidy program started producing ultra-cheap corn. And if you read between the lines, they were allowed to achieve massive levels of growth by putting small farmers out of business by their owners dictating slaughterhouse contracts. And if you are a small farmer you simply can't build a USDA inspection facility cheaply, so you are at the mercy of those who own them.
Honestly, this whole story angers me beyond belief. We don't need more regulations, and this swine flu epidemic is just what will justify more food safety regulations and a massive new government agency created by HR 875, more controls over our food. Yes, this pork factory may be responsible for this. But can you imagine a town in the United States where 60% of the population experiences respiratory distress and some sort of legal action isn't pursued? There have been plenty of lawsuits already over CAFOs in the United States. What appears clear in this article is that the local authorities didn't care. As in many countries that are less free (like China), corruption of the local officials is rampant.
Here is what we need to do. We need to abolish grain subsidies and the EQIP program that help CAFOs to be profitable. We need to abolish USDA meat inspection requirements dating back to Teddy Roosevelt that put small farmers out of business. On-farm, hygienic slaughter is not an issue. We need to put to rest programs like NAIS that are exorbitantly costly to the small farmer and have nothing to do with food safety. Foreign countries need accountable local governments free of corruption. And if it can be proved that Smithfields helped to create this global pandemic, which will likely kill thousands if not more, they should be sued out the ying yang. We already know that CAFOs, whether beef or pork, have created antibiotic and acid- resistant strains of E. coli and MRSA. Now possibly this new swine flu. None of these are just some minor nuisance, they are deadly. And these developments are completely predictable to anyone having taken Evolution 101. The animals are packed in at way too high a density (seriously, 50,000 hogs per square mile?) to ever regulate these factories into cleanliness.
Frankly -- and unfortunately -- I'm even skeptical that lawsuits will help them to clean up their act:
Smithfield is not just a virtuosic polluter; it is also a theatrical one. Its lagoons are historically prone to failure. In North Carolina alone they have spilled, in a span of four years, 2 million gallons of shit into the Cape Fear River, 1.5 million gallons into its Persimmon Branch, one million gallons into the Trent River and 200,000 gallons into Turkey Creek. In Virginia, Smithfield was fined $12.6 million in 1997 for 6,900 violations of the Clean Water Act -- the third-largest civil penalty ever levied under the act by the EPA. It amounted to .035 percent of Smithfield's annual sales.
So most importantly, we all need to search out and face the reality of where our food comes from and adjust our purchases accordingly. People who are having their water supplies polluted by this waste are having their rights violated, and it doesn't appear that EPA regulations or lawsuits are really working to do anything about it. (It might help on a legal level if waterways were owned, which is where most of the problems have occurred.) Most Americans are far too ignorant of these matters.
The Feasibility of a Pastured Animal Production Model By Monica @ 3:35 PM
I was linked by a friend to a great article in Mother Earth News entitled The Amazing Benefits of Grass-Fed Meat. I think the article focuses too much on climate change, but the other benefits described in the article with regard to animal health, human health, soil erosion, and landscapes are still huge. I highly recommend it. It also highlights the soil fertility issues I've wanted to raise for some time. And to think we would have been decades ahead on rotational grazing techniques by now without grain subsidies.
I've been busy with so many other tasks and my blogging here has been very light. I promise that I'll blog on HR 875, rBGH and its supposed mitigation of climate change -- and the feasibility of a grass-fed model from a production perspective. A commenter on Dr. Eades' blog says he wants a more authoritative analysis on this last point, not just layman comments. I'm currently collecting peer-reviewed literature on the issue of productivity in pastured, organic models vs. grain-fed models.
In the meantime, here are some simple facts presented by Michael Pollan, who discusses the productivity of Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm in Virginia. This is an organic animal farm using rotational grazing. Other farms such as Nature's Harmony Farm also use this technique now. I'll grant that this farm exists in a rich, moist temperature zone. However, the results are still impressive and as the Mother Earth News article above points out, there is a lot of marginal grassland in the United States that is not used for grazing. (This includes land pulled out of production under 10 year contracts through the USDA's idiotic CRP program.)
Let the video load and move forward to 10:50 where the interesting stuff starts, then finish it to the end. Quite inspiring.
In other words, 1/2 cow, 1 pig, 3000 eggs, 200 broiler chickens, 10 turkeys, and 10 rabbits per acre. The bird production per acre might be a bit higher than ideal per this commenter's suggestion. Nevertheless, can we conclude from the facts of this example that organic=starvation, as Earl Butz, former Secretary of Agriculture under presidents Nixon and Ford, said? I think not.
The Price of Grass-Fed vs. Grain-Fed Beef By Monica @ 1:52 PM
A few months ago I was involved in an internet discussion about the affordability (or rather, the perceived non-affordability) of grass-fed beef. This led me to investigate the costs of grass-fed beef in a bit more detail.
Let's compare the costs of current grain-finished beef with mostly grass-fed beef. I'll use two fairly comparable products: Costco beef and local beef from Colorado's Best Beef Company (CBB).
I say "mostly grass-fed" because the product I'm using for comparison isn't grass-finished. At CBB, the cattle are fed grains for probably the last couple of weeks of their lives. However, there's a vast difference between this beef and the feedlot beef in stores. There are no additional inputs from antibiotics or steroids. The cattle are raised on pasture, which doesn't create a waste and animal health problem as it does in feedlot practices where literally tens of thousands of animals are packed per square mile (correction: I had written "acre". I think we can all see it's physically impossible to get that many animals per acre unless we're stacking them high). From a human health perspective, the omega fatty acid ratio and conjugated linoleic acid content resulting from a short grain-finishing time may render this beef as somewhat less ideal than grass-finished beef. It's still corn-finished beef. However, the finishing time is drastically reduced under a mostly grass-fed model. This beef is much higher quality and tastes spectacular.
But how much does it cost?
The grass-fed beef from CBB is approximately $5.61 per pound, but this doesn't tell you very much because it doesn't allow for a direct comparison of cuts. If it's all ground beef then obviously that's twice as expensive as grocery store feedlot beef!! So, I went through the list of cuts and poundage that are received in a bulk order of 1/2 beef from Colorado's Best Beef Company. Then, I went to Costco and listed the prices per pound for all of these different cuts: T bones, ribeyes, sirloin, round roast, top round, bottom round, chuck, flank, prime rib, sirloin tip, heel of round, arm roast, rump roast, brisket, stew meat, short ribs, soup bones, and ground beef. Where Costco didn't have these cuts, I used local grocery store prices/lb.
What I discovered is that if you buy the same poundage of the same cuts at Costco, you will pay 71% of the cost of the local, grass-fed beef. At Costco you'd pay $922.30. Buying the same poundage and cuts 1/2 beef in bulk from CBB you would pay $1303.70. (If you'd like to see the calculations, feel free to email me.)
Is it worth it? It depends on your individual value hierarchy. Most of the cuts at Costco are USDA graded as Choice. Costco Choice ribeye is $6.89/lb while Costco Prime ribeye is $8.89/lb. Most of the cuts at Costco aren't available as Prime cuts, so I couldn't make that comparison. I would imagine most of the cuts from CBB are Prime, therefore making CBB affordable when you fairly compare quality.
It's up to the individual to decide whether the environmental, animal welfare, taste, health benefits, and convenience of buying in bulk are worth the extra cost. It certainly helps to have a big freezer and some cash up front. For us this is worth it, partly because we do not eat out that often due to living in a remote area. Furthermore, I have discovered in the past year that with a little bit more effort I can make a far more delicious dish than I can get in most restaurants when I have access to quality ingredients.
Those of us on the meat production side of agriculture have been thrown a curve ball over the last year by the federally mandated production of ethanol. The historic corn price discovery, dictated by supply and demand, has been replaced by a highly subsidized ethanol industry whose appetite for corn and ability to bid the price up has resulted in record high corn (and rest of the feed commodities) prices. These prices are only to be replaced with higher record prices every time the government opens its mouth.
Here, though, I have to point something out. Historic corn prices are not driven solely by supply and demand. This is a mixed economy where prices are also driven by subsidies and USDA economists. I have to point out that even with the ethanol boondoggle, corn prices are still probably lower than they would be due to the existence of government programs that are designed to drive down the price of corn. Yes, I think this is the case even with federally-mandated and subsidized ethanol production. This is not only because the price of corn is directly lowered due to subsidies but because the subsidies encourage overproduction which further lowers the price. I'm not sure anyone can really make a decent stab at what the price of corn would be in a free market. It's an incredibly complex situation since corn has been artificially cheapened since the mid-1900s.
In relation to grass feeding, I've encountered a lot of speculation online that either 1) a grass-fed model can't feed the world or that 2) it's not affordable. I'll address the first issue in a later post. As to the second issue, let's consider a commodity where subsidies are pretty much absent:lamb. All lamb is pasture-raised, whether it's in Australia, New Zealand, Chile, or the US. This means the market isn't skewed by feed costs. And what do you find? If you go to different stores you will find that all of these products are pretty competitive in price, despite the foreign products having additional transportation costs.
I'd like to end by pointing out that New Zealand's farm economy is almost purely free-market -- unlike the intensely socialized farming system that exists in the United States. There are practically no farm subsidies in New Zealand, and the farm products arequite competitive even on an international basis. The cost of milk production in New Zealand is among the lowest in the world, too. All the cows in New Zealand are grass-fed. And they don't use rBGH to boost milk production, either. New Zealand cows do not see an ounce of grain, except the seed heads they might find on a farm field. How can farmers possibly afford to grass feed? Isn't grass feeding supposed to be expensive?
What's my point? The grass-fed animal production model works -- when it doesn't have to unfairly complete with subsidized grains, EQIP subsidized waste disposal, and "vertical integration" of the beef industry due to USDA inspection mandates that make it all but impossible for small producers to slaughter meat affordably. All three of these drive up costs for independent producers operating on a largely grass-fed model.
Grain-finished beef is never going to disappear because most Americans like the taste. However, it does not need to be as inhumane and polluting (i.e. violating of property rights) as it is. Nor does it need to be providing as low quality meat as it is providing. Unleash the free market, and we will see the success of grass-fed beef here in the United States. It's already been shown in New Zealand.
NAIS Meeting with Ag. Secretary Tom Vilsack By Monica @ 9:45 AM
Walter Jeffries of NoNAIS has a recent report of his testimony about The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in front of Tom Vilsack, our new head at the USDA. I agree with the vast majority of what Jeffries wrote in this piece, with the exception that democracy is somehow about individual rights -- it's not. Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
In any case, I recommend reading Jeffries' report in its entirety.
ROCHESTER, Pa. -- On the first Friday of Lent, an elderly female parishioner of St. Cecilia Catholic Church began unwrapping pies at the church. That's when the trouble started.
A state inspector, there for an annual checkup on the church's kitchen, spied the desserts. After it was determined that the pies were home-baked, the inspector decreed they couldn't be sold.
...
The problem is the pies are illegal in Pennsylvania. Under the state's food-safety code, facilities that provide food at four or more events in a year require at least a temporary eating and drinking license, and food has to be prepared in a state-inspected kitchen. Many churches have six fish fries a year, on Fridays during Lent. St. Cecilia's has always complied with having its kitchen licensed, so food made there is fine to serve. But homemade goods don't make the cut.
Go read the whole thing.
If these pies are so dangerous, why is it legal to give them away?
The sad thing is that this story is not exceptional. There are health codes like this across the country and they are partly responsible for the decline in farmer's markets. It is impossible to sell a loaf of bread -- or any other homemade product -- at some farmer's markets due to health codes. Getting away with it is dependent on the grace of the regulators and whether they are willing to turn a blind eye.
This is all beyond absurd. These pernicious regulations must be repealed.
Unfortunately, this news is not new. Monsanto, the makers of POSILAC (rBGH or rBST) have been pursued labeling bans and restrictions state by state for nearly a decade now. When a dairy labeled their milk as rBGH-free, Monsanto sued them. When Monsanto was not successful with lawsuits, it attempted to enact labeling bans directly by going to state secretaries of agriculture. When that didn't work, Monsanto tried to get labeling restriction bills passed in state legislatures. Unfortunately, their last attempt in Kansas has worked. It is reprehensible.
Monsanto no longer owns POSILAC -- Eli Lilly does. The people who own and use this hormone will do and say anything to sell it. Last year a peer-reviewed paper was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) -- a very high impact journal -- in which scientists associated with Monsanto actually alleged that use of this hormone could help stop global warming. I'm not kidding.
A review of that PNAS paper will be one of my next blog topics.
